Dude, he *specifically* said he'd like to explain it but it's impossible. Sometimes you just have to accept things on not-faith.

-Autistic Angel

My comment to him still stands. I find it especially ludicrous because I am a Christian.

Well I'm not a Christian OR religious, and yet his statement seems easy to understand.

You can follow the teachings of Jesus and believe in his divinity without being a churchgoer or practicing any sect's doctrine. That's being a Christian without being religious.

Or

You can go to church regularly, practice all the prescribed rituals, and tithe the expected amount without actually believing the literal truth of the resurrection. That's being religious without being a Christian. Or you can follow any of a number of religions that aren't Christianity. Who's more religious, broadly speaking, than Muslims?

Dude, he *specifically* said he'd like to explain it but it's impossible. Sometimes you just have to accept things on not-faith.

-Autistic Angel

My comment to him still stands. I find it especially ludicrous because I am a Christian.

Well I'm not a Christian OR religious, and yet his statement seems easy to understand.

You can follow the teachings of Jesus and believe in his divinity without being a churchgoer or practicing any sect's doctrine. That's being a Christian without being religious.

Or

You can go to church regularly, practice all the prescribed rituals, and tithe the expected amount without actually believing the literal truth of the resurrection. That's being religious without being a Christian. Or you can follow any of a number of religions that aren't Christianity. Who's more religious, broadly speaking, than Muslims?

Going to church is not what makes you religious. A Christian is an adherent of Christianity. If you don't believe Christ was the son of god and died for your sins, you aren't a Christian. I don't see how you can be a Christian and not be religious.

Dude, he *specifically* said he'd like to explain it but it's impossible. Sometimes you just have to accept things on not-faith.

-Autistic Angel

My comment to him still stands. I find it especially ludicrous because I am a Christian.

Well I'm not a Christian OR religious, and yet his statement seems easy to understand.

You can follow the teachings of Jesus and believe in his divinity without being a churchgoer or practicing any sect's doctrine. That's being a Christian without being religious.

Or

You can go to church regularly, practice all the prescribed rituals, and tithe the expected amount without actually believing the literal truth of the resurrection. That's being religious without being a Christian. Or you can follow any of a number of religions that aren't Christianity. Who's more religious, broadly speaking, than Muslims?

Going to church is not what makes you religious. A Christian is an adherent of Christianity. If you don't believe Christ was the son of god and died for your sins, you aren't a Christian. I don't see how you can be a Christian and not be religious.

Ale

I agree with your definition of a Christian. We have different understandings of the word "religious." Religion is the wrapper around the core belief. One can believe in the central miracle without practicing the religion.

Science talks to your head. Jesus talks to your heart. Without faith its impossible to believe in God and His Son.So if you try to reason this all out intellectualy, (religion without Christ)you will always come up with the same answer: When I see Him, then I'll beleive. Faith is believing then you'll see.

Its why I believe Jesus doesn't give too flips about which party you belong to or back. I would love to sit down and talk face to face with anyone here about it. Not trying to aposlitize anyone, but it would be information that the media and Hollywood never tell you about true Christianity. The type Jesus died for..You can tell by some of the responses here that most people had no idea Religiousity isn't necessarily Christianity.

You can tell by some of the responses here that most people had no idea Religiousity isn't necessarily Christianity.

No, it's clear by your responses (even if they are a bit rambling and random) that you really don't understand what the word "religious" means. It is quite impossible to be a man of faith, no matter if we're talking Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, or whatever, without also being religious. Participation in a church has absolutely nothing to do with it. Not the slightest little thing.

Dude, he *specifically* said he'd like to explain it but it's impossible. Sometimes you just have to accept things on not-faith.

-Autistic Angel

My comment to him still stands. I find it especially ludicrous because I am a Christian.

I am very sick this weekend, so it is even more likely than usual that my sense of humor is poorly calibrated for the situation. Please accept the explanation that I was not actually chastising you, but having some fun with the idea of Arclight pre-refuting any questions about his unusual outlook by saying it's too sophisticated for the written word.

What I've shared is not un-usual to born again Christians, its the norm. But of course the media/Hollywood are not going to report on that.

I've been a missionary over-seas, Bible College in Texas, Youth With A Mission in Australia, Youth with a Mission, Turner Valley Alberta.I've taught in Christian churches, preached in the same. I've prayed for people that have been healed.

I'm not speaking on something that I know little about. But I think some of you are here. You can't make Christianity to be the way you want it to be. There are moral absolutes. The truth is the truth. Not the truth is what ever you think is the truth.You can agree or not. But you can't change the rules of the game as you go along, to fit your mind as it changes day to day. Jesus said, "I am the same yesterday, today, and forever". What was truth 2 thousand years ago, is truth today, and tomorrow. I never invented it. Its just the truth. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life and who ever believes in Me shall not perish, but have ever lasting life. He didn't say whoever is the best at being a Christian. Or who keeps the most commandments, or who does more charitable work, etc. Whoever, is you, me and the other fella(everyone) Whoever believes in Jesus is saved. Period.

People usual get put off by people being totally honest with them and seem to come across as know it all's. With me that is so far from the truth as to be funny. But years ago I decided to be honest with myself and others. I wont compromise that to please you. Many people tire themselves out everyday trying to be all things to all people, because of the fear of rejection. What I've shared in the thread is my life. I live, eat, breath my love of Christ. I'm not trying to convince anyone to think and believe like me. But try not to do the same to me either.

Religion the way the world today see's and knows it, is most times not even close to what Jesus came preaching and living, and dying for.

Being good, never swearing, giving money, loving, and any other virtue you can think of wont make you a Christian. Being a thief, a liar, an adulterer, wont keep you from becoming a Christian.

Believing in Christ Jesus and what He said is all that is needed. Religion complicates what Jesus meant to be easy to understand. That's one of the reasons He said, "unless you become like a little child you will never see(understand, believe) heaven.

Coming to Jesus as a little child means, that you come with no secret agenda, no pre-conceived ideas, just wide open eyes willing to hear and receive the truth.

Jesus isn't approached like the CEO of a company. Jesus wants you, your heart, your love........in return He will give you life, and life more abundantly.

I make no apologies for being who I am, and what I believe.Jesus is the power of love to all those who believe. Faith, without it, its impossible to see Jesus.

The world says,: Show me, and I'll believeGod says,: Believe Me and you'll see.

PS. I think what I'm saying about Religion vs Christianity in the context of what I'm saying will be so clearly answered if you attended any mainline Christian Church of today.Its one of those things that is best experienced than taught. If you really want to see Religion opposing Jesus, join a Church. Chances are if you don't see it from the pulpit you will see it in some of the people there.

Being good, never swearing, giving money, loving, and any other virtue you can think of wont make you a Christian. Being a thief, a liar, an adulterer, wont keep you from becoming a Christian.

The notion that someone can live an entirely virtuous life which espouses every single positive aspect that humans can aspire towards (i.e. love, charity, goodwill, service, humility, etc.)...yet still end up in hell because because he/she doesn't happen to do it in the name of Jesus seems utterly ludicrous to me. There's not a chance I could get on board with that.

Being good, never swearing, giving money, loving, and any other virtue you can think of wont make you a Christian. Being a thief, a liar, an adulterer, wont keep you from becoming a Christian.

The notion that someone can live an entirely virtuous life which espouses every single positive aspect that humans can aspire towards (i.e. love, charity, goodwill, service, humility, etc.)...yet still end up in hell because because he/she doesn't happen to do it in the name of Jesus seems utterly ludicrous to me. There's not a chance I could get on board with that.

I think all you guys are doing is arguing over the definition of "religious".

Pretty much, yup. Thankfully nobody has invoked the dictionary yet.

Well here's a good rule of thumb: if you endorse or engage in behaviors or beliefs on the grounds that they will influence what happens after you die, that's religion. Example: accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.

I'm curious how long you've been born again, Arclight. I never thought of you as overtly religious at all until this thread.

Ale

I'm not overly religious.. I'm just a plain vanilla born again Christian.

But to answer you question, about 31 years.Right after I left the Canadian Armed Forces.

Its as real to me as the air I breath. No pretense, no secret agenda's, I just believe in the Love of God shown to us through Jesus the Christ.Semantics about Religion as opposed to true christianity really do nothing but cause more questions. Hear is a rule of thumb for me. If you feel you need to earn God's love, thats a religious spirit..If you feel you're too "dirty" to have such great love, that's religiousness. Christian's were first called that in Antioch After Christ had risen. Before that people who believed in Jesus were called, "Followers of the Way". Religious leaders of the day hated Christians. Jesus said I have come to do away with the old, and bring in the new(covenant).Its life to me. It joy and peace to know and feel this love, this love that is unconditional and free to any that ask for it.

Over religious denotes to me someone who is tumping his belief and condeming those who don't believe the way they do. That's not me. That's not most Christians I know.Remember, most of what you hear about Christianity is tainted by media, hollywood, bitter people who have an axe to grind. But my prayer would be that all of my gamers buds here would seek Him for yourselves. No pre-conceived Ideas, just a pure, honest question to God. God, If you are real, and Jesus is really my saviour, please show me.

I believe He will.

I'm also just the guy who loves games, and has always appreciated this forum, and the old Gone Gold one. You guys are a great source of knowledge in a ton of areas. Sometimes I'm astounded by the wisdom and intelligence that is shown here through a lot of you guys.

So........Game on!!!! Time to go and turn on another communications tower and find Vaas hiding in the grass like a snake...

Distinctions are important. For example, people here are referring to religion while discussing "organized religion" Religion is a deeply personal choice. Organized religion is a powerplay. It goes to the old statement "power corrupts". It seems the more organized a religion gets the more powerful it gets. With that power comes corruption. In that effect, organized religion is not unlike a government. Im fine with anyones personal religious choices as long as those choices do not infringe on the rights of or do harm to anyone else. Unfortunately several organized religions thrive on doing just that.

Even as a kid the whole evolution "theory" seemed silly to me.(being honest, not trying to offend anyone). But I always had a sense of a designed creation beginning. I wouldn't have worded it like that at 10 but its how I felt.

For me it always took more "faith" to belive in evolution than it did in a loving creator.

Evolutionist I know like to argue the point of if God created everything, then who created God. Who ever created God, was God..was God........you see where I'm going,

I like to answer their question direct as well. If the Universe was birthed by a big-bang(theory)then where did the materials for the pre-bang come from...and on and on we go...haha.

I just have fun debating stuff like this with others, it makes for great conversation as long as no takes offence.But my heart of hearts has come to "know" that the human spirit is real. We are a tri-part being..Spirit, Soul, and body. The most needful part of our being is the Spirit. Yet because of organized "Religion" through out the ages people have turned it all off. Yet the spirit still lives in each of us. Its eternal. Jesus came to give us life, and life more abundantley. Not rules and rules more abundantly.(Human invented way of control)..That was the old testament.If people would take time to get to know the true story of Jesus and who He is, they would surely see the distinction between the both.

Paul the Apostle said: In the end all that is important is, Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these is Love.God wants to Love people into life, not brow beat them.(religion).

I think I've shared enough about my belief and love of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I could talk all day and night bout such things but others aren't always into that. Like I wouldn't be if I was at a table of people who loved golf and talked of nothing else..........YAWN....

For purposes of this forum lets say: In the end there is gaming,forums,and MMO's. And the greatest of these is MMO's.

Nice to see people with hugely differing point of views stay on track and keep animosity to a real minimum. That's why I've hung out with you guys for years.

For me it always took more "faith" to belive in evolution than it did in a loving creator.

That's because actually learning how something works is always harder than making up a comfortable answer in your head, and doesn't yield quite as satisfying results. After all, the answer in your head is more comfortable because you made it that way.

By the way, you make it pretty clear that you don't know much about the Big Bang Theory. I recommend learning a bit about it before criticizing it.

The enemy of religion is knowledge, and the reason it will continue to be so is because those who are the most faithful to religion don't seem to seek knowledge outside of their faith. It's a sad state of affairs, and I hope I live long enough to see it change. I seriously doubt it though.

Arclight isn't trying to insult anyone. He's being open and honest about his beliefs. I may not agree with them, but I see no reason to belittle him for his faith. I disagree more with intolerance, truth be told.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

Arclight isn't trying to insult anyone. He's being open and honest about his beliefs. I may not agree with them, but I see no reason to belittle him for his faith. I disagree more with intolerance, truth be told.

I realize that, and I'm not trying to insult him either, though I am being harsh on purpose. I don't see why he can attack the foundations of my world view (such as the Big Bang) if I can't attack his right back. Sometimes I get the impression that attacking science is okay, but attacking religion is unacceptable.

I don't believe I was attacking anyone for their belief in how things came to be.I don't attack science just because people think its in direct opposition to faith.

I was a member of a group called, Creation Research Scientist. In a nut shell very respected scientists who have come to believe in a created beginning as opposed to a random happening. They go to main line universities on invite, to debate their stand with non believing scientists and the student bodies. I've read some of the debates and to say they were interesting would be a huge understatement. That's why I believe it can be discussed without too many toes stepped on.

But I am willing to admit that words can be misconstrued, sorry if I offended anyone and their core beliefs.

I don't believe I was attacking anyone for their belief in how things came to be.

"Attack" is maybe too strong a word, but you are certainly challenging the scientific method quite strongly, and in ways that are very easy to refute. Such as your use of the word "belief" in the sentence I just quoted. Science isn't belief. It's observation. No faith is needed, since every little thing can be verified through methodical observation and testing. Calling science a belief is, from a certain point of view, very insulting.

Quote

I don't attack science just because people think its in direct opposition to faith.

It doesn't have to be. Many, many scientists are also religious without having the two things conflict with each other (naturally one or the other will have to budge in some cases, such as when looking at the concept of evolution, and it's typically but not always religion that must do the budging). But when religion makes a claim based on faith that is easily refutable through evidence, observation and testing, some opposition must obviously happen. It's not so much opposition as two entirely different ways to think about things. To a non-religious person, (which includes Christianity, for the record. Not that I really need to point this out, but you mentioned earlier that you don't consider Christianity to be a religion) hearing someone claim, say, that creationism is a fact, is like having someone point at an apple on the ground, say "that apple doesn't exist, and I can prove it", then point to a 2000 year old book as evidence. The world just doesn't work that way. It gets particularly embarrassing when the person claiming the apple doesn't exist doesn't even want to try picking it up, looking at it or tasting it to realize it's there, claiming that it's pointless since he knows that it's not there anyway. When that person allows the book to override absolutely everything he observes in the world, something is fundamentally wrong.

Quote

I was a member of a group called, Creation Research Scientist. In a nut shell very respected scientists who have come to believe in a created beginning as opposed to a random happening. They go to main line universities on invite, to debate their stand with non believing scientists and the student bodies. I've read some of the debates and to say they were interesting would be a huge understatement. That's why I believe it can be discussed without too many toes stepped on.

The problem with that is that it can't be discussed properly since the two sides are so fundamentally different. One side uses a book to prove their points, while the other side uses observation. Both sides see "evidence" as two radically different things, and when their views of what constitutes evidence aren't compatible, no solution or agreement can be reached. Doubly so since each side's evidence can easily be used to "disprove" the other side. Yet in the middle sits the proverbial apple, waiting to be picked up and eaten so that the argument can be settled for good, but nobody does. After all, it's not there, is it?

Quote

But I am willing to admit that words can be misconstrued, sorry if I offended anyone and their core beliefs.

Again with the beliefs. Science is not faith! Everything science teaches you can be tested and proved by anyone who bothers to do so. The same cannot be said for religion. Don't equate science with religion when they are so different!

Apology accepted, btw. I would never discuss this kind of thing normally, but hey, you opened Pandora's box!

Quote

God bless... I couldn't resist.

That I don't mind. Those are just words to signify respect or appreciation for someone else. Their source is of little importance. It's like the way all Norwegians (me included) shout the name of the devil when they curse (it's our equivalent of the word "fuck"), yet very, very few actually believe in his existence or mean anything by it.

Do you know how many changes in theories there have been in science over the last 100 years regarding even the simplest of things, let alone the origin of the universe?

No. Do you? Do I have to?

I don't know any exact numbers, but I expect it's a lot. That actually reinforces what I'm telling you. Unless something can be reliably observed and tested, it's not scientific. A theory has been thoroughly tested, to the point where the chance that it's wrong is so statistically low that there's little doubt about its accuracy. Yet that's the beauty of statistics: Sometimes that small chance turns out to be enough, and a theory is finally disproved with a revolutionary new type of observation or testing method. We've seen this happen with basic theories like Newton's 3 laws of motion, for example. They were observed and tested so much that there wasn't a sliver of doubt that they were accurate. Then man started exploring space, and further testing revealed that Newton's laws are only valid on the surface of the Earth. Thus that theory had to be considered dead, but it's still used for basic physics that take place on the Earth's surface because they are easy to learn and serve as a gateway to the more advanced and accurate versions of the laws that work universally (at least so far as we are able to observe with today's technology).

You know another thing that separates science from religion? When a theory is proved wrong with solid evidence and repeatable tests, this is often met with enthusiasm, not resistance, in scientific communities. Scientists love any knowledge that expands their understanding of the universe, even if that knowledge forces them to abandon something that has been considered true up until then. On the other hand, religion refuses to change no matter how compelling the other side of the coin is. Look at the debate about homosexuality. The Bible says that being gay is bad, and thus millions of millions of gay people (and those close to them) have to suffer on a daily basis. Is there change in the religious communities regarding the views on homosexuality? Of course! Religious people are people too, and at some point compassion and common sense does take over. However, this change is extremely slow and met with much opposition from the upper echelons, to the point where priests have been, and still are, cast out from their communities for voicing their support for homosexuals in public. This even happens in Norway, a country that is about as godless as they come.

Quote

The only thing I can say with certainty (to paraphrase the words of a greater man than I) is that the only thing you can know is that you don't know.

That's a bleak world view. So what you're saying is that nothing is worth learning because there is so much that can't be learned yet out there? It's one pretty damn huge logical fallacy to claim that because science can't explain everything, science is wrong. Religion, for all its easy answers, certainly can't explain everything, and it often contradicts itself. Hell, even the Bible contradicts itself. Often!

Again with the beliefs. Science is not faith! Everything science teaches you can be tested and proved by anyone who bothers to do so.

Do you know how many changes in theories there have been in science over the last 100 years regarding even the simplest of things, let alone the origin of the universe?

The only thing I can say with certainty (to paraphrase the words of a greater man than I) is that the only thing you can know is that you don't know.

Which is why "faith" is popular. You dont need answers to the important questions if you simply have faith. There is a reason faith is called the opiate of the masses. As far as changes in science, that is one of the strengths of science. As our knowledge and understanding grows, our perception of our existence changes. It is the nature of theories to change. Theories are not fact and remain unproven until such information is gathered to prove said theory. Some theories may never be proven and some change completely. Thats one of the fundamental differences between faith and science. Faith doesnt require proof, it requires belief. Science challenges belief until it can be proven.

But condemning others for believing in something you don't when you can't prove you're right in any significant manner (i.e. the origin of the universe) is the height of hypocrisy.

Come on, at least TRY to check your facts before making an argument like that. Here's a hint: Why is the Big Bang Theory called the Big Bang Theory?

And here's the answer to that hint: It's called the Big Bang Theory because it has been thoroughly tested and observed beyond all reasonable doubt. There is scientific consensus that the Big Bang happened, and in which way it happened. There has been no credible evidence presented to the contrary. For something to be called a "theory" means that it has been documented as well as any scientific concept can. It can't get any more respectable than that, but the religious wing always abuses the word "theory" and claims that it means something it doesn't.

So yes, the Big Bang has been "proven" beyond all reasonable doubt. Does that mean that it's impossible for evidence to show up later that will disprove or alter it? Of course not! There's no way for us to predict that. If I'm eating an apple that I can see, feel, smell and taste, I'm going to look at you as some kind of weirdo if you come up to me and claim that it doesn't exist simply because there's a slight chance that someone in the future might know something we don't know about apples. It's the same way with the Big Bang Theory.

But hey, don't take my word for it! Read the Wikipedia article since it sums things up pretty well. And then assume that Wikipedia is written by a bunch of buffoons while you seek out more credible sources, like any good scientist would. Just don't sit on your ass and claim that it's equatable to faith since it's a theory. That just reeks of ignorance. There's no way to say that in a nice way, so my apologies.

And here's the answer to that hint: It's called the Big Bang Theory because it has been thoroughly tested and observed beyond all reasonable doubt. There is scientific consensus that the Big Bang happened, and in which way it happened.

p.s. no offense, but you take a pretty hostile tone when discussing stuff if someone disagrees with you, or simply questions your beliefs. I find myself responding in kind sometimes to your posts. you may want to dial the aggression back a few levels. not every form of discourse should be a battle.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 08:11:52 PM by hepcat »

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

There's a physicist named Robert Gentry who would like to disagree with you. As well as Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle.

There are absolutely missing pieces in the Big Bang theory and alternate hypotheses out there. That is part of the process, and changes none of what I said before. The Big Bang theory has been tested and observed so to such a degree that all reasonable doubt has been eliminated. Yet this event is so far back in time and of such a monumental, galactic scale that it's hard to do properly. Missing pieces could be missing because there's no longer any way to observe them and everything we have to go on is speculation. This speculation ends up being tested by simple elimination. If an explanation covers all the bases and has no credible opposition, it's accepted into the theory. At least as far as I know. This is at a level I'm not all that familiar with. I'm no scientist after all, though my education means I've been able to at least gain rudimentary knowledge of these things, enough to know where to look for more information. Alternate hypotheses are simply that: Hypotheses. Until they are sufficiently tested and observed, they are not a credible "threat" to the Big Bang theory. Once those scientists you mentioned above have a theory of their own, their suggestions are merely food for more research. If they could disprove the Big Bang theory, it would no longer be a theory, yet it still is.

Quote

p.s. no offense, but you take a pretty hostile tone when discussing stuff if someone disagrees with you, or simply questions your beliefs. I find myself responding in kind sometimes to your posts. you may want to dial the aggression back a few levels. not every form of discourse should be a battle.

What you're seeing is not me in battle mode, but me in frustration mode. Every single time this kind of discussion occurs, it always, always boils down to the same basic misunderstanding: "It's just a theory". That the word "theory" is being used for two such widely different things (wild speculation on one hand and a scientifically proven and documented fact on the other) is probably the biggest mistake ever made in the construction of the English language. The frustration stems from the "just a theory" argument being used over and over and over when all it takes to make the discussion actually progress is to have the people making that argument actually sit down and learn what "theory" means. Yet they never do.